|Title:||To en archy: or, An exercitation upon a momentous question in divinity, and case of conscience viz. whether it be lawfull for any person to act contrary to the opinion of his own consicence, formed from arguments that to him appear very probable, though not necessary or demonstrative. Where the opinions of the papists, Vasquez, Sanches, Azonius, &c. are shewed, as also the opinions of some Protestants, viz. Mr. Hooker, Bp Sanderson, Dr. Fulwood, &c. and compared with the opinions of others; the negative part of the question maintained; the unreasonableness of the popish opinions, and some Protestants, for blind obedience, detected; and many other things discoursed. By a Protestant.|
|Publication Info:||Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) :: Text Creation Partnership,
2011-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 2).
This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this text, in whole or in part. Please contact project staff at firstname.lastname@example.org for further information or permissions.
To en archy: or, An exercitation upon a momentous question in divinity, and case of conscience viz. whether it be lawfull for any person to act contrary to the opinion of his own consicence, formed from arguments that to him appear very probable, though not necessary or demonstrative. Where the opinions of the papists, Vasquez, Sanches, Azonius, &c. are shewed, as also the opinions of some Protestants, viz. Mr. Hooker, Bp Sanderson, Dr. Fulwood, &c. and compared with the opinions of others; the negative part of the question maintained; the unreasonableness of the popish opinions, and some Protestants, for blind obedience, detected; and many other things discoursed. By a Protestant.
Protestant., Collinges, John, 1623-1690, attributed name.
London: [s.n.], Printed in the year, 1675.
Conscience -- Early works to 1800.
Liberty of conscience -- Early works to 1800.
TO THE Christian and Protestant READER.
Whether it be lawful to act contrary to an Opining Conscience?
CHAP. I. The Question shortly stated. The terms [Conscience,] and [Opining] opened: The Various complexions of Con∣science; arising from the different mediums by which light shines into a soul about a Practical Proposition. The terms of Faith, Science, Opinion, Doubting, Suspition, Scruple, opened. The true notion of a Fixed Conscience, an Opining Conscience, a doubt∣ing, and a Scruputons Conscience. The Schoolmens Notion of an Opinion. The Question fully stated. The method propounded for handling it.
CHAP. II. The Opinions of Popish School-men, and Casuists in the Case particularly of Vasquez, Sanchez Medina, Fi∣liucius, Azorius. Their Monstrous Assertions, what they make necessary to make an Opinion probable. The Opinion of one Doctor according to them suffi∣cient to warrant Men to Act contrary to their own Opinions. Their Opinions what a Man ought to do, when Superiours Command Inferiours, what the In∣feriours judge unlawful. The summe of their detesta∣ble Doctrine.
CHAP. III. The Opinion of former Protestants, about the lawful∣ness, or unlawfulness of Mens Acting contrary to the Opinion of their own Consciences. Such Acting con∣demned by all former Protestant Casuists. Bald∣vinus, Alstedius, Amesius, Perkins: The diffe∣rence of some later Divines from their Fore-Fathers, particularly, Mr. Hooker. The Vanity of his Proof, from Deut. 17.18. Acts 15. Or from Rea∣son. Bishop Sanderson agreeing with Ancient Pro∣testants. So Mr. Fulwood, in his Cases. The differing Expressions of some Divines of this pre∣sent Age, The tender touching of the Question, and nibbling at the Opinion of the Popish Doctors in the Case by others. The Question again stated, and made ready for Debate.
CHAP. IV. The Question stated; It is proved, that it is not Law∣ful to Act contrary to the Opinion of a Mans parti∣cular Conscience, by five Arguments; because the particular Conscience is the Proximate Rule of Acti∣on, granted by all Divines. Because of that Text, Rom. 14.23. Because it Subjects a Man to conti∣nual Terrors of Conscience. The contrary Principle over-throws the Natural Order of the Souls Operati∣on, and plucks up a great Pillar of the Protestant Religion, and would make the Scriptures and Ar∣gumentative Books of little Ʋse but to Torment Men.
CHAP. V. The Grand Objection answered. This Principle doth not take away all Power from Magistrates, nor at all dissolve the Bonds of any due Obedience. The Magistrates Power opened, granted, limi∣ted; he hath no power to Judge as to the Inferiours practice, what is, or is not indifferent. The strange variety of conformable Wri∣ters, in stating, and determining the Question. The Reasonable∣ness, and Necessity of Indulgence. Dr. Ashton's late Book ex∣amined, his Notion of Persecution inquired into, the true No∣tion of it. An Introduction to the next Case.
CHAP. VI. Second Quest. Whether it be Naturally possible for any Person in a Practical Proposition to judge that part probably Lawful from extrinsick. Arguments; the contrary to which he at the same time Judgeth probably unlawful from intrinsick Arguments. The Question opened. The Opinions of Vasquez, Sanchez. The Negative part of the Question maintained, because this is contrary to the Principles of a Rational Soul. The Conclusion.